Thank you so much for all your videos. I must admit that lately I get more excited watching carneades.org than literally anything else in TH-cam. I can't wait for the next video to be uploaded!
The devil is in the details. The line of sufficient harm seems more obvious on the edges, but up for debate in the numerous gray areas you brought up. I guess it's better to allow all things by default and then remove them one at a time on a case by case basis.
There's generally some things we can ban without having to experience them, unnecessary evils like theft, murder, rape, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia etc. There is no need to allow these until something bad happens, as allowing them in of itself is something bad happening. Additionally no ban is 100% effective, there will always be people who are willing to undergo whatever penalty we place on those crimes, and others who get away with it, so removing things before they cause harm is never going to completely eliminate them. Unless something is guaranteed to be a net good, banning it will generally reduce, though not eliminate the harm. Some things do adapt to the policy, so the policy must evolve with it. Drugs get stronger the more you ban them, so multi-vector policy like rehab centers and bans should go together, like using multiple vectors of anti-biotic to kill a resistant strain of bacteria.
I started watching this playlist cuz I’m an advocate for free speech. Very insightful so far. I’d also like to hear the arguments for jokes and memes in the context of free speech.
Suppose that we live in a polity in which all forms of birth control are prohibited, but they are available on the black market. According to Mill, would it be permissible for the government to forbid the teachers from providing information about the black market birth control options?
I would argue no, Mill would not forbid it, any more than Mill would forbid teachers from teaching students true facts about the effects of illegal drugs. Mill held the truth in very high respect. I think handing out drugs or condoms is a step beyond speech, but just teaching of true scientific information is not something the government has a right to censor in Mill's view.
All humans have personal cognitive biases; it's very difficult to prevent spin of data sets; students should first be taught how to think rather than what to think, and what axiomatic truth or facts really are. Then they should be taught what has historically been practical in the concrete world, not what is, in their opinion, true. Lastly, whatever position the educator holds, the counterpoints should also be introduced into the conversation, and class discussion should ensue.
Why? That does not seem to have anything to do with free speech. Mill is firmly against the government interceding in people's lives. What right does that government have to limit this act? Does it meet the harm principle?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene it is harmful to society. It facilitates the spread of venerial disease and leads to broken families. At the same time, what is good about it? I know Mill is utilitarian and puts pleasure above all else, but there are indeed higher things than individual pleasure, such as a virtuous society.
If porn is speech, it is a very strange kind of speech. It is apparently a kind of speech that is only appropriate to "engage with" in privacy rather than the public square. Indeed if you try to film porn in public you would be arrested. In fact the only substantive difference between pornography and prostitution is that there is a camera filming the former.
I don't cover this part of the debate much in the next video. Most people think art is a kind of speech. A political cartoon, despite including pictures is a kind of speech, and so would a political cartoon with no words. If images are speech, what is the important difference between an image and a movie? Laws restricting speech in particular countries do not make it not speech or even a separate kind of speech. In many countries you could not engage in discussions using cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the public square, as doing so would get you arrested or killed. Simply because some countries outlaw a kind of speech it does not follow that it is speech. Additionally, there are plenty of naked statues adorning many a public building. To your comment on prostitution, this seems clearly false. A filmaker who creates a film where a man steals a woman's purse is not guilty of hiring an actor to steal something, unless the woman was not an actor and did not know she was in a film. You may have concerns which apply to both protitution and pornography, but they are importantly different.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene the purpose of art is to evoke the true good and beautiful, as such, films can be art insofar as they pursue this goal. The purpose of pornography is directly opposed to this goal. It is intentionally designed to denigrate the good, true, and beautiful by subordinating it to pointless self-gratification. It desecrates love and women, enslaves men, and suppresses society from revolutionary action. The research of E Michael Jones has revealed "sexual liberation" to be a tool of the global elite to emasculate and pacify the masses for the purpose of political control. Those who hand themselves over to vice are easily manipulated by those who produce that vice. A man with with an obsession has very little sales resistance. Those who pursue virtue are truely free since they have mastered themselves.
@@JDG-hq8gy evidence for what? That sexual liberation is a form of political control? Read Libido Dominandi by E Michael Jones and you'll get more evidence than you could ever want to know.
Thank you so much for all your videos. I must admit that lately I get more excited watching carneades.org than literally anything else in TH-cam.
I can't wait for the next video to be uploaded!
Thank you so much
Thanks for watching!
The devil is in the details. The line of sufficient harm seems more obvious on the edges, but up for debate in the numerous gray areas you brought up.
I guess it's better to allow all things by default and then remove them one at a time on a case by case basis.
There's generally some things we can ban without having to experience them, unnecessary evils like theft, murder, rape, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia etc. There is no need to allow these until something bad happens, as allowing them in of itself is something bad happening. Additionally no ban is 100% effective, there will always be people who are willing to undergo whatever penalty we place on those crimes, and others who get away with it, so removing things before they cause harm is never going to completely eliminate them. Unless something is guaranteed to be a net good, banning it will generally reduce, though not eliminate the harm. Some things do adapt to the policy, so the policy must evolve with it. Drugs get stronger the more you ban them, so multi-vector policy like rehab centers and bans should go together, like using multiple vectors of anti-biotic to kill a resistant strain of bacteria.
I started watching this playlist cuz I’m an advocate for free speech. Very insightful so far. I’d also like to hear the arguments for jokes and memes in the context of free speech.
Suppose that we live in a polity in which all forms of birth control are prohibited, but they are available on the black market. According to Mill, would it be permissible for the government to forbid the teachers from providing information about the black market birth control options?
I would argue no, Mill would not forbid it, any more than Mill would forbid teachers from teaching students true facts about the effects of illegal drugs. Mill held the truth in very high respect. I think handing out drugs or condoms is a step beyond speech, but just teaching of true scientific information is not something the government has a right to censor in Mill's view.
It is claiming these "facts" are not, and are contesting them from a biased religious and conservative point of view.
All humans have personal cognitive biases; it's very difficult to prevent spin of data sets; students should first be taught how to think rather than what to think, and what axiomatic truth or facts really are.
Then they should be taught what has historically been practical in the concrete world, not what is, in their opinion, true.
Lastly, whatever position the educator holds, the counterpoints should also be introduced into the conversation, and class discussion should ensue.
Why did you reupload?
No video about free speech v condoms only education though. Hmph.
We could allow education about condoms, but in exchange we would have to outlaw extramarital sex.
Why? That does not seem to have anything to do with free speech. Mill is firmly against the government interceding in people's lives. What right does that government have to limit this act? Does it meet the harm principle?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene it is harmful to society. It facilitates the spread of venerial disease and leads to broken families. At the same time, what is good about it? I know Mill is utilitarian and puts pleasure above all else, but there are indeed higher things than individual pleasure, such as a virtuous society.
@@sethapex9670 government has no business attempting to define or create a “virtuous” society.
If porn is speech, it is a very strange kind of speech. It is apparently a kind of speech that is only appropriate to "engage with" in privacy rather than the public square. Indeed if you try to film porn in public you would be arrested. In fact the only substantive difference between pornography and prostitution is that there is a camera filming the former.
I don't cover this part of the debate much in the next video. Most people think art is a kind of speech. A political cartoon, despite including pictures is a kind of speech, and so would a political cartoon with no words. If images are speech, what is the important difference between an image and a movie?
Laws restricting speech in particular countries do not make it not speech or even a separate kind of speech. In many countries you could not engage in discussions using cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the public square, as doing so would get you arrested or killed. Simply because some countries outlaw a kind of speech it does not follow that it is speech. Additionally, there are plenty of naked statues adorning many a public building.
To your comment on prostitution, this seems clearly false. A filmaker who creates a film where a man steals a woman's purse is not guilty of hiring an actor to steal something, unless the woman was not an actor and did not know she was in a film. You may have concerns which apply to both protitution and pornography, but they are importantly different.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene the purpose of art is to evoke the true good and beautiful, as such, films can be art insofar as they pursue this goal. The purpose of pornography is directly opposed to this goal. It is intentionally designed to denigrate the good, true, and beautiful by subordinating it to pointless self-gratification. It desecrates love and women, enslaves men, and suppresses society from revolutionary action. The research of E Michael Jones has revealed "sexual liberation" to be a tool of the global elite to emasculate and pacify the masses for the purpose of political control. Those who hand themselves over to vice are easily manipulated by those who produce that vice. A man with with an obsession has very little sales resistance. Those who pursue virtue are truely free since they have mastered themselves.
@@sethapex9670 Do I have an evidence for this?
@@JDG-hq8gy evidence for what? That sexual liberation is a form of political control? Read Libido Dominandi by E Michael Jones and you'll get more evidence than you could ever want to know.
@@sethapex9670 thx I’ll check it out